Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by scottharding

I don't think any city can "max out," unless you're talking about available land, and in that sense, I'd say maxing out is a very bad thing. Look at Manahattan. It continues to grow in population, the island has been built out from end to end for about a century.
I'm with Urban boy on this one. The measure of a good city is not the space it takes up, but how it utilizes the space that it occupies. For this reason, I don't believe the Jordans, or Sandy, or any other Utah city will ever rival Salt Lake City. It is the capital. It has the history. It is years ahead in infrastructure. Cities grow organically, and Salt Lake is currently a city. The majority of the rest of the county is suburbs. They will continue to grow, hopefully admirably, and will be fine cities, no doubt. But Salt Lake will always be the anchor city for this valley. That's my prediction, and time will tell I suppose.

Well, the "max out point" of the city is more of a goal, not really a point that a city could feasibly reach. You are right, neighborhoods decay, then they are torn down and more modern and effecient neighborhoods are built in their place. Cities will continue to grow and evolve.

The reason I think that SLC won't always be the domanant "anchor" is because of how the valley was built. Down town SLC is built in a far corner of the valley. If it was in a more central location (Murray, Taylorsville-ish area), then I wouldn't see how other parts of the valley could (or would desire to) grow into down town cores. This 4-core senerio is a product of what I see to be a paradigm shift where people stop commuting far (as fossil fuels dwindle) and focus on close-to-home development. People in Riverton will eventually refuse to commute 30 miles when they can work only 5-10 miles from home. Even on TRAX and other mass transit, it will take people in the corners of the valley over an hour to commute. Of course, you will still have some suburban people commute long distances to SLC (people will go wherever they can get a job). I see down town SLC always being the cultural center where most suburban people come in to town a couple times a week, but suburban people's day-to-day lives will be lived within their own urban core.

[urbanboy]

Another great reason for urban-growth-boundaries!

Central location doesn't necessarily mean central to the valley. Salt Lake City is, however, central to the metro region, with Ogden to the North, Provo to the south, Park City to the east and sprawlville to the west. Also, according to Salt Lake County's address system Salt Lake City is the Center. If it were in the middle of the valley, Downtown wouldn't have such amenities as City Creek Canyon and Ensign Peak and access to nature, via numerous mountain trails.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Not if we move to reusable forms of energy and find new materials for car tires. Reusable/natural forms of energy have no pollutants. But what to do about the rubber dust from car tires problem is a dilemma. Perhaps our society needs to get rid of cars altogether?

I could live without a car, you could live without a car, but there are a lot of people who won't. I think a more feasible goal would be to get people to only use their cars occasionaly, but use mass-transit for the brunt of their trips. I think that the 'latex allergen' issue with rubber tires won't be as severe if people cut down on car use. We need to invest heavily in mass-transit, and hopefully people will learn to love it

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Another great reason for urban-growth-boundaries!

Yes, if we restrict outward growth, then these type of urban cores will sprout up all over the place as people continue to move in, but can't sprawl out.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Not if we move to reusable forms of energy and find new materials for car tires. Reusable/natural forms of energy have no pollutants. But what to do about the rubber dust from car tires problem is a dilemma. Perhaps our society needs to get rid of cars altogether?

Maybe nanotech will solve the tire problem. Or we can move to flying cars

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Yes, if we restrict outward growth, then these type of urban cores will sprout up all over the place as people continue to move in, but can't sprawl out.

Great!

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Well, the "max out point" of the city is more of a goal, not really a point that a city could feasibly reach. You are right, neighborhoods decay, then they are torn down and more modern and effecient neighborhoods are built in their place. Cities will continue to grow and evolve.

The reason I think that SLC won't always be the domanant "anchor" is because of how the valley was built. Down town SLC is built in a far corner of the valley. If it was in a more central location (Murray, Taylorsville-ish area), then I wouldn't see how other parts of the valley could (or would desire to) grow into down town cores. This 4-core senerio is a product of what I see to be a paradigm shift where people stop commuting far (as fossil fuels dwindle) and focus on close-to-home development. People in Riverton will eventually refuse to commute 30 miles when they can work only 5-10 miles from home. Even on TRAX and other mass transit, it will take people in the corners of the valley over an hour to commute. Of course, you will still have some suburban people commute long distances to SLC (people will go wherever they can get a job). I see down town SLC always being the cultural center where most suburban people come in to town a couple times a week, but suburban people's day-to-day lives will be lived within their own urban core.

There is the "prestige" factor to consider. Just as the east side is considered more desirable, downtown SLC will have the "exclusive status" that draws people to it over the other cores. It's boxed in the corner orientation gives it some of the most beautiful urban views and scenery with the avenues and the mountains right against it. Who wants to live in bland, flat downtown Sandy when there is the charm of the trolleys and foothills of SLC?

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I could live without a car, you could live without a car, but there are a lot of people who won't. I think a more feasible goal would be to get people to only use their cars occasionaly, but use mass-transit for the brunt of their trips. I think that the 'latex allergen' issue with rubber tires won't be as severe if people cut down on car use. We need to invest heavily in mass-transit, and hopefully people will learn to love it

I wish more money from the stimulus package would go towards mass transit instead of roads. I'd be fine if it were just for maintenance, but it looks like most the money in the stimulus package will fund more sprawl, paying for new roads and "water systems" to feed new subdivisions. I think it's partly up to the State to decide where the money goes, which doesn't give me any hope at all since many of our state legislators are developers on the side, or have close friends/lobbyists who are developers out to make some quick gains.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by DMTower

There is the "prestige" factor to consider. Just as the east side is considered more desirable, downtown SLC will have the "exclusive status" that draws people to it over the other cores. It's boxed in the corner orientation gives it some of the most beautiful urban views and scenery with the avenues and the mountains right against it. Who wants to live in bland, flat downtown Sandy when there is the charm of the trolleys and foothills of SLC?

I don't know...I think west bench developments like Daybreak are usurping the "elite status"....I think I would much more perfer the new, modern, energy efficient houses/condos at Daybreak over some of the old, drafty, decaying houses on the east side. That's just me though

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by Stenar

SLC's grid consists of blocks that are 1/8 mile or smaller. Jordan and most of the suburbs grids consist of blocks that are 1 mile or in some instances 1/2 mile, i.e. fewer major roads because the major roads are 1 mile apart.

Very important point! everyone please take note.

[DMTower]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I don't know...I think west bench developments like Daybreak are usurping the "elite status"....I think I would much more perfer the new, modern, energy efficient houses/condos at Daybreak over the old, drafty, decaying houses on the east side. That's just me though

Yes, some might. But just like in many bigger cities, it's the old houses with the charm that fetch the highest prices. There doesn't seem to be any difficulty selling houses in the ave's.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I don't know...I think west bench developments like Daybreak are usurping the "elite status"....I think I would much more perfer the new, modern, energy efficient houses/condos at Daybreak over the old, drafty, decaying houses on the east side. That's just me though

Daybreak is trendy right now and popular as new developments go, but I don't think anything can beat the prestige of the Harvard/Yale area in SLC. I lived on the periphery of Harvard/Yale while in college in arguably what must have been the ugliest house on the street, but every single time we were out front in the yard, people would drive by and ask if our house was for sale or if we knew anyone on the street who wanted to sell their house, because people really want to live in that area.

[scottharding]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Daybreak is trendy right now and popular as new developments go, but I don't think anything can beat the prestige of the Harvard/Yale area in SLC. I lived on the periphery of Harvard/Yale while in college in arguably what must have been the ugliest house on the street, but every single time we were out front in the yard, people would drive by and ask if our house was for sale or if we knew anyone on the street who wanted to sell their house, because people really want to live in that area.

That area is gorgeous. I'd take an older home on the East side over the new stuff on the southern end of the valley anyday. Not only for the charm and character that comes with those neighborhoods, but also to be in the city, near the university or downtown, or simply in more dense, urban, vibrant atmosphere.
And this is why I think that that SLC will always anchor the area, Urban Logic. I think you're right about the other cities one day developing their own urban cores, and their populations commuting less, and that's a good thing. But Salt Lake (and Ogden and Provo as well) are older, more populated, and will continue to grow and densify. So while the other cities grow and evolve, they will always be behind the pace of Salt Lake, especially while they are economically dependent on Salt Lake City as the commericial, cultural, and entertainment epicenter of the metro region.
And in regards to the pollution issue, yes, with the growth of the area, I think it should be a top concern, and the time to solve the problem is now.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Stenar

SLC's grid consists of blocks that are 1/8 mile or smaller. Jordan and most of the suburbs grids consist of blocks that are 1 mile or in some instances 1/2 mile, i.e. fewer major roads because the major roads are 1 mile apart.

Salt Lake has the EXACT SAME sized blocks as the Jordan area. Down town SLC, HOWEVER, has much smaller blocks. As I have said before, the urban core planned for the Jordan Area doesn't even exist yet. When it is built, I am sure it will have much smaller blocks within it. You guys are looking at existing neighborhoods and comparing them to down town SLC when you should compare them to SLC neighborhoods outside of down town. In West Jordan, all main north/south roads bewteen Redwood and Bangetter are 5 blocks apart - 17th (Redwood), 22nd, 27th, 32nd, 36th (Bangetter), 40th, etc. In Sugar House, there is 27th, then 33rd, then 39th. Those blocks are actually bigger than Jordan neighborhoods. Notice that only the biggest roads make their way out of down town. Main street disappears to the south, South Temple disperses into the avenues, 5th South and 6th South are merely tiny neighborhood roads when they leave down town. The biggest roads like North Temple, 4th South, State St, etc continue onto a grid with much bigger blocks. The big block/small block argument can work for Sandy, but not for the Jordan area because its planned urban core doesn't have any block constraints. They can build the blocks however they want (and I'm sure they will be similar to down town SLC). It is in a much better position than SLC because it is empy land - they can build it however they want.

For this reason, I predict that Sandy and West Valley will have dense urban clusters, but the Jordan area will have a full scale urban core. I mean, 600k people can't just live in a suburb - it has to take on a more traditional city composition to even function! The existing big block areas will remain as they are, but the nearly half of the land available to develop will take a much denser aproach, I'm sure. The area where the urban core will develop will have small blocks like SLC and have only the major roads disperse into the existing big block grid just like down town SLC does. It will also have a 10-lane freeway (like SLC) and wide blvd's with integrated mass-transit in them. The luxury this part of the valley has is that it has an opportunity to build however it wants without destroying existing development. They can build roads with BRT, light rail, and trails without the pain-staking process of converting existing grades. They can build a down town-like area from the bottom-up (with small blocks, light rail, BRT, etc.) This part of the valley has the perfect opportunity to build a well-planned city with all the features it needs to grow into such a city. It will suprise us how fast it can grow - I'm betting 20-30 years.

[T-Mac]

Hyatt at the Gateway

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by T-Mac

Hyatt at the Gateway

So is it topped out already? 6 stories is rather small, in my opinion. I was expecting 8-10 stories. It's only 2 stories higher than one recently built in the burbs at Jordan Landing. This looks like an airport hotel or a suburban hotel - not a down town hotel

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by T-Mac

Hyatt at the Gateway

TMAC, thank you so much for all the photos! I certainly missed them last week. But, I sure do appreciate all the photos you supply on this forum. You're the best!

[urbanboy]

Let's compare (all maps are the same scale):

Salt Lake City











The Jordans











Salt Lake City again

[T-Mac]

Sugarhouse Future Development

[urbanboy]

Beautiful!!!!!